Posted
by
Zonk
on Thursday June 14, 2007 @01:14PM
from the taking-the-fight-to-the-front dept.

Two new posts have appeared on Sony's PlayStation blog, and they mark a significant step forward for the company's efforts to bridge the gap between players and the company. Even their competitors are lauding the decision to join the discussion online. Maybe Nintendo will be next? 1up, in the meantime, offers links to both stories and culls the best content from both entries. From a post by SCEA president and CEO Jack Tretton: "We fully realize that past success is no guarantee of future success, but it does give you some perspective. We have to bring the games to market that will showcase what the PS3 can do and ultimately entertain you like no other games have. We need to provide proof of what the PS3 can do for you and work tirelessly to improve the value and justify your investment. At the end of the day, it's always been about the games. To push the boundaries of gaming beyond where they currently lie takes a great deal of risk. I think all the hardware manufacturers are doing that in some way."

Seeing as how Sony is from Japan (land of the hentai), all they have to do is come up with an incredibly good-looking 3D real-time hentai game of some sort. Kinda like what Dead or Alive Xtreme does, but without the volleyball and go all the way with the girls. Just rate the damn game/simulation/whatever you want to call it "M", only adults can afford their system anyway.

They already do - in fact its the biggest type of game over there. Except that most tend to be really only slide shows with some crappy story and make a decision (Do A or Do B? Say Y or X?). And the few 3d ones that do exist are based on some shitty action game-play more than sex. Oh, and did I mention that the majority of these (at least if you want h-scenes) tend to be on PC only?

Even if they did make a few with really good graphic textures in 3d - I think there's too much difference in the cultures.

The fact that the girls in DOAX2 look so damn good but not being able to "do anything" with them seems like a pure tease to me.

Congratulations! You've learned what some men with strip club addictions have yet to learn.

I think the issue of sex in games in general is going to find it's way into the mainstream eventually. Maybe even within the next 25 years or so. Look at porn. Now just about every company's got at least part of it invested in providing either adult movies in hotel rooms to distribution of adu

Uh, no it's not. It's a small, niche genre that gets a lot of publicity in America just because it's so completely unlike anything here. In reality, go look at any top-ten game chart -- you will almost never see a hentai game or dating sim on the chart. Occasionally the absolute most popular ones (Tokimeki Memorial, for example) will make a mark, but most of them just fade away into oblivion. The charts are typically dominated by the (comparatively) squeaky

... not on the scale that Sony needs. Look at how squeaky-freaking-clean Nintendo, full of such racy fare as Nintendogs and Brain Training, is dominating the sales charts. My friend looked at the Famitsu Top 30 a few weeks (?) ago -- 4 games, FOUR, were on a non-Nintendo system. Where are the hentai games? Answer: sitting in some store in Akihabara serving a very niche audience, the very existence of which embarasses people and which is not enough to sustain a multi-national like Sony. Take a look at M

"We fully realize that past success is no guarantee of future success, but it does give you some perspective. We have to bring the games to market that will showcase what the PS3 can do and ultimately entertain you like no other games have. We need to provide proof of what the PS3 can do for you and work tirelessly to improve the value and justify your investment. At the end of the day, it's always been about the games. To push the boundaries of gaming beyond where they currently lie takes a great deal of risk. I think all the hardware manufacturers are doing that in some way."

Seriously, this has got to be one of the most obvious business 101 comments I have ever heard from a multi-national, multi-billion dollar-a-year, multimedia-electronics mega supercorp.

Now, what I can't decide is this: did they actually just figure this out (doubtful...) or did marketing decide to restate the doesn't-deserve-to-be-restated obvious in hopes of getting a bunch of people to nod their heads and say: "yep, Sony is definitely now a contender in this race (I'm willing to put money on it...).

...or did marketing decide to restate the doesn't-deserve-to-be-restated obvious in hopes of getting a bunch of people to nod their heads and say: "yep, Sony is definitely now a contender in this race (I'm willing to put money on it...).

Sony's been all talk and no action this generation and I think most people have woken up to that fact, and I think for most that's a much larger factor then just Sony "losing touch" with the market. I honestly don't think a blog is really what they need right now nor do I

It's not that I think it's a bad idea I just think it's effort spent that could have been better spent elsewhere.

I have no problem with a blog, and keeping your customers informed about what is on your mind is always a good thing to do IMO... my point isn't that it's a bad thing, it's that Sony has promised a lot this generation, and so far they've only delivered a very small fraction of what they've promised. I guess I just see the blog as another place for them to talk about how great their console wil

Now, what I can't decide is this: did they actually just figure this out (doubtful...) or did marketing decide to restate the doesn't-deserve-to-be-restated obvious in hopes of getting a bunch of people to nod their heads and say: "yep, Sony is definitely now a contender in this race (I'm willing to put money on it...).

Actually, while of course the statement is obvious business 101, it is a fair reaction to a lot of the media's criticism of "Sony's arrogance."

If you get bashed for saying "we've won in the past and we'll win again", and get bashed for saying "we've won in the past, but we realize that means we still have to fight", what exactly do you EXPECT them to say?

Maybe some expect them not to flip flop and cater to the moment, but maybe show a considered plan and stick to it? But then maybe they'll just never please everyone anyway, let alone all at the same time, or one after another.

"If you get bashed for saying "we've won in the past and we'll win again", and get bashed for saying "we've won in the past, but we realize that means we still have to fight", what exactly do you EXPECT them to say?"

Seriously. They pretty much said, "We've decided that people buy systems to play games, so we are going to make games that people want to buy so they will buy systems and games."
As to your question, we already know about Sony's attitude towards blogs and their audience. [consumerist.com]

The fact of the matter is they need some GOOD exclusive to bring this system from near death. Sure its a Blue-Ray movie player, cheaper than normal players even, but its supposed to be a game system first. As it stands now, most games I want to play have cross platform with the 360 or the PC, so why bother with the PS3 in the US?

Jack goes on to remind readers there are 15 PS3 games coming from internal studios by the end of the year and over 100 total (including third=party).

The fact of the matter is they need some GOOD exclusive to bring this system from near death. Sure its a Blue-Ray movie player, cheaper than normal players even, but its supposed to be a game system first.

I know that the Playstation 3 isn't selling as well as Sony would hope, but "dying" seems a bit premature when their last console cycle was 7 years. The Xbox 360 waited over a year for Gears of War, which many consider to be the first game that pushed the hardware (and it didn't push it that well). The PS3, by that standard, has until early next year to come out with something on the PS3 that looks like it couldn't be done on another console.

...The Super Smash Bros: Brawl website is a blog of sorts.It's not a blog in the sense of "This is the random thoughts of Brawl's director uncensored by Nintendo", but it has a modified blog format.

In any case, the most important part of communication between a company and its customers isn't the medium, it's the message. I don't mean the literal meaning of the message, but every aspect of that message. Is it respectful? Does it make sense? Is it what the customer wants? I could care less if Sony uses blogs

I recently went from being a big sony fan to losing all faith (well maybe not so recent, when PS3's pricetag showed up I lost it). While not saying it directly, they basically said that maybe they took PS3's extra capabilities too far and lost focus. And they're saying they want to refocus on games. Well, that sounds good to me.
Hopefully its not just talk and they'll start pulling themselves out of this mess. A small part of me still wants to like them.

The PS3 is an amazing little machine. In the days of new video cards costing nearly as much as a PS3, I don't really buy the whole price tag thing. Not too many people complain about the Xbox 360 price and it was only $100 cheaper. Factor in that you don't have to pay for a monthly subscription to do online things on the PS3, and the fact that it's a really cool machine with more capabilities, it evens out quickly.

But if you want to just focus in on the bullet point, that's your decision.

The 360 is $200 cheaper. (I dare you to find me a PS3 20GB).
Also, you don't have to pay a monthly fee for online pay. $50 for a year (which is 4 bucks a month)
[..]
I'm sure all the PS3 owners are still waiting for it to even out. quickly.

The 360 is $200 cheaper. (I dare you to find me a PS3 20GB).Also, you don't have to pay a monthly fee for online pay. $50 for a year (which is 4 bucks a month)

Do you plan on playing your 360 online for the next 4 years? If so, then you've paid as much (more, if you factor in the inflation that will occur over the next 4 years) as you would have if you had bought a ps3.

And this is why console price is a stupid thing to debate. In the long run, the price of the console becomes trivial compared to what is spen

"And this is why console price is a stupid thing to debate"I'm not sure about that. It is stupid to say one console is better than another because of price. But price does factor into the potential popularity and success of a console. And the PS3 is on the wrong side.

It is simply too expensive right now. Because right now, I get a $600 brick, because none of the purchased or rented games and online fees I would have payed exist yet. Looking back in 5 years, it might have been a smart buy. In advance, not kn

You're both right, but this argument is about the current value of a PS3 vs a 360. What do I get when I leave the store with it today. When I got my 360, I got Dead Rising, Gears of War, and Dead or Alive 4 in the same week. (I also got my 360 Premium for 200 bucks, so yay me!) I didn't find myself waiting around for a good 360 game to come out.If I got a PS3 today, I'd find myself thinking "Why did I pay 600 bucks for this?" Potential isn't worth 600 bucks, IMO. Further on down the line, if the PS3 p

Well, nothing that interests me. At least not until FF13 comes out. And since mine is the only opinion that matters to me on what makes a great game, I respectfully disagree with you. There's nothing on the PS3 I really care to play right now.

None of the games on the PS3 right now appeal to me. When God of War 3, FF13, and MGS come out, I'll own a PS3. But in the meantime, paying 600 bucks for a system that has no games I want to play just to WAIT for the games I DO want to play is stupid.

I may as well wait until I will actually PLAY the thing to PAY for the thing.

I'll agree that including fees over time, a 360 may not really be any cheaper than a PS3, but unfortunately over time doesn't apply to my wallet. I don't own a 360 either because I can't lay down 400+ bucks on the table for just entertainment. If I were investing in a console it might matter, but there
Then again, I'm a college student. But isn't that a large portion of the game industry's audience?
Once again, my greatest wishes that PS3 will get its shit together, but until that day i'm out of the co

I value my entertainment, and the PS3 has been a fun system to own. Especially since they've done a lot to give it more features in terms of media playing over the network, etc.It plays PS2 games just fine, and they recently added the ability to upscale them so they look a little better on HDTV's. They also added a DVD upscaler option, which really does a good job of making your ordinary DVD's look better.

People willing to pay $500-$600 for a game system are probably not the same market segment as those willing to spend the same on a phone. There is probably some overlap between the two markets, but you would need to suggest that the two products target the same market, but that's probably not true.I really don't think the fact that $600 video cards exist mean anything about whether a console at that price will be viable. Historically, consoles at that price generally did not succeed.

You ought to. Even without the games it's a complete media center and an amazing piece of hardware. If you can afford it, it will easily beat any expectation that you have from it. I just wish there were more games available NOW rather than later but I bought it knowing that I'll have to wait.:)

A new video card only costs as much as a PS3 if you're going bleeding edge, like an 8800 GTX. The RSX in the PS3 is more comparable to a Nvidia 7800(a 7800GS w/256MB of RAM is about $170). A 320MB 8800 GTS, which you can get for $300, will spank it, much less a $600+ video card like an 8800 Ultra. The 7800 upper-end series cards still go for a ton of money for some reason, even though they're not state of the art anymore. You also have the option with all of those cards of plugging in another one and us

All those technical things don't matter, though. The PS3 is cutting edge for a game system. I exaggerated on the price a bit to make a point, but the fact that you can easily spend a grand on a medium-spec game machine, I don't see the big deal about the $599 for the PS3. You have to put it into perspective with the rest of the things that people buy right now. iPods that cost $300, HDTV's that cost $3200.. shit's expensive now.Yea, it would have been good if they priced the PS3 at $500. I believe

Wow, so many things that are completely wrong here.1. Very few people buy $600 video cards. Stating anything else shows your ignorance as a console gamer. The most I personally have spent is $200 on a X1950 Radeon. As a result, I probably will not purchase any more upgrades. I'll wait 3 years or so and purchase an entirely new mid grade system.

2. The PS3 is $200 more. They've already cut production on the low end model. $600-$400 = $200.

1. ) Don't call me ignorant, you twit. I've been playing games on PC's before you were out of grade school. I was making a point, and you validated it: $200 for one single component in an entire PC is supposed to dispel it? If you want to get into an argument about who's more old school, why don't you tell me what a fossil driver is, or what KALI was, how many VL Bus video cards you owned.. or shit, what GLide was...2. ) $100, $200. Doesn't really matter. Buy a few games, controllers, and it wash

. In the days of new video cards costing nearly as much as a PS3, I don't really buy the whole price tag thing. Not too many people complain about the Xbox 360 price and it was only $100 cheaper.

Lolz... I just yesterday went into a Virgin store, there you had, PS3 - £425, Xbox360 £275 Wii - £250. They were bundles, but of course the PS3 bundle was the machine + 1 game (of a 2 game list hehe), while the Xbox360 was the system + 2 games and the Wii was the system + 2 games + extra controller

What they need to figure out how to do is to cut the production cost for the system so it can be sold for a lower price which will encourage sales. Once more units are sold, there'll be more incentive for developers to develop games.
As for cutting production costs, I've not a clue how they'd go about it.

What they need to figure out how to do is to cut the production cost for the system so it can be sold for a lower price which will encourage sales. Once more units are sold, there'll be more incentive for developers to develop games. As for cutting production costs, I've not a clue how they'd go about it.

I believe they're already doing that. Some people think that the PS3 costs what iSuppli said 9 months ago. This is clearly cannot be the case by a long shot. Sony are selling blue laser diodes (for exampl

A good start would be reading what they themselves wrote - that it's all about the games, that is, remove the Bluray drive and drop the price by £100 - £150. Personally I really don't care about it, when HD movies really matter to me I'll buy a player, or in fact, more likely, I'll just stream them/download them from some video download service (kinda like MS' XBox live video marketplace if they ever expand it outside the US).

At this point removing the drive at most will save $60 off the production cost (specific drive related components--was $125 during the shortage and launch of ps3). Everything else required for the player is redundant in the system. The cell is a powerful processor that can handle any codecs without any extra specialized decoding chips. The video output hardware (any digital to analog converters as well) are also redundant.